Neato Torpedo wrote:Well, that's not exactly true. Folks of the homosexual persuasion have been dealing with stereotypes forever about how gay relationships are only for sex and not for love. Using a word that has no romance or happiness in it just happens to perpetuate that idea.
I'd say using a word with no romance or happiness shows they aren't doing it just for the "thrill". Also having *any* kind of legal bond to a partner would solidify that person and make it clear that they are not part of the stereotype. But that's just how I see it.
Well yeah, that's how you see it. Your motives may be pure and you may recognize them as fully what they are, but there's tens of millions of people that don't recognize the legitimacy of gay relationships. The longer we keep it in the letter of the law that gay relationships are unworthy of having the definition changed to include them, the longer these perceptions will live.
Madison wrote:
knapplc wrote:Simply make every joining that is recognized by the state a Civil Union, and we're all equal. The term marriage can go away, or be relegated to religious significance alone, and that's that.
This I agree with. Giantsfan mentioned the exact same thing awhile back and the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.
You don't want to change the definition of marriage but you support changing the definition of civil union?
By the way, when you referred to your lesbo friend as "civilly wed", you were unwittingly legitimizing their relationship as a marriage. Saying they're "wed" means they had a wedding, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines a wedding as "a marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations". Maybe that's why she didn't have a problem with it. QED by OED, sucka.
Rocinante2: you know Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team ofanrex: go on Rocinante2: i'm done Rocinante2: lmao
I support Texas being it's own country and then building a wall around it to keep the texans out of our country. And then I propose a tax for anything the texans want to buy from us.
Neato Torpedo wrote:when you referred to your lesbo friend
Interesting to use the derogatory term of "lesbo" while trying to defend gay marriage. True colors shining through?
I didn't bump this thread over that though, I saw it and laughed when you first posted it. Anyway, I bumped this thread because I found this article quite interesting:
HONOLULU — Hawaii lawmakers Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would allow civil unions for same-sex couples.
Civil unions would begin Jan. 1, 2012.
The measure grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.
A big argument people made was that civil unions were not equal to marriage in the legal sense. Seems like it was rather easy for Hawaii to fix that problem. So why can't the other states do the same thing and put this issue to bed once and for all?
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison wrote: So why can't the other states do the same thing and put this issue to bed once and for all?
Same contrary question as six months ago. I'll even phrase it just like yours: "Why can't other states just allow same sex marriage and put this issue to bed once and for all?"
The solution is always so easy when we only consider our own side of it and viewpoints.
This is seriously the easiest fix of any controversial issue. The government no longer uses the term marriage for anyone. Civil unions are used by the government for any two people who want to get "married". Marriages are given out at the discretion of churches. The whole argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married stems from the religious aspect of marriage, so separate religion and state and the whole thing is fixed.
GiantsFan14 wrote:This is seriously the easiest fix of any controversial issue. The government no longer uses the term marriage for anyone. Civil unions are used by the government for any two people who want to get "married". Marriages are given out at the discretion of churches. The whole argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married stems from the religious aspect of marriage, so separate religion and state and the whole thing is fixed.
Next problem please.
i soooo agree. get government out of the marriage business. problem solved!
I'll say it again that in the eyes of the government, a marriage arranged by the state is the same as one in any religious entity. Therefore, all rights and privileges of marriage are granted onto secularly married, religiously married same-sex and heterosexual couples are the same. Changing the name as state-bound marriages as "civil unions" therefore doesn't make sense.
It's not like in France where civil unions (PACS) have different coverage of rights than married couples.
GiantsFan14 wrote:This is seriously the easiest fix of any controversial issue. The government no longer uses the term marriage for anyone. Civil unions are used by the government for any two people who want to get "married". Marriages are given out at the discretion of churches. The whole argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married stems from the religious aspect of marriage, so separate religion and state and the whole thing is fixed.
Next problem please.
The discretion of the churches? So people who aren't Christian can't get married? Great solution. Rather than ending discrimination against gay people, let's discriminate against them AND a lot of others as well.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Neato Torpedo » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:06 pm 
